Iraq abuse as bad now as under Saddam -former PM

LONDON, Nov 26 (Reuters) - Abuse of human rights in Iraq is as bad now as it was under Saddam Hussein, if not worse, former prime minister Iyad Allawi said in an interview published on Sunday.

"People are doing the same as (in) Saddam Hussein's time and worse. It is an appropriate comparison," Allawi told British newspaper The Observer.

"People are remembering the days of Saddam," said Allawi, a secular Shi'ite and former Baathist who is standing in elections scheduled for Dec. 15. "These are the precise reasons why we fought Saddam Hussein and now we are seeing the same things.

"We are hearing about secret police, secret bunkers where people are being interrogated," said Allawi in an apparent reference to the discovery of a bunker at the Shi'ite-run Interior Ministry where 170 men were held prisoner, beaten, half-starved and in some cases tortured.

"A lot of Iraqis are being tortured or killed in the course of interrogations."
Allawi said the Interior Ministry, which has tried to brush off the scandal over the bunker, was afflicted by a "disease".

If it is not cured, he said, it "will become contagious and spread to all ministries and structures of Iraq's government".

"The Ministry of the Interior is at the heart of the matter," Allawi said. "I am not blaming the minister himself, but the rank and file are behind the secret dungeons and some of the executions that are taking place."

Allawi was Iraq's first prime minister of the post-Saddam era but failed to win January's election, which brought current Prime Minister Ibrahim Jaafari, an Islamist Shi'ite, to power.

An opinion poll in an Iraqi newspaper a week ago suggested over half of Iraqis want Jaafari to stay on in the job after the December vote.

Allawi, who enjoys some support among both Shi'ites and Sunnis, came third in the poll behind Mithal al-Alusi, a secular Sunni who heads his own election list.

This kinda stuff happens when you downgrade a working (though not perfectly by any means) country into active warzone. Power tends to shift twards the militant and the militant tend to do the same thing as the baddy we threw out. Anybody ever see Bananas by Woody Allen?

BTW, I've asked this before -- but don't you think Mr Blair has political motives and designs all his own?

Click to expand...

He carries the WASP Man's Burden, of course. His political motives are hard to decipher, but as far as I'm concerned, his "thinking" on Iraq was every bit as culpably deceitful and recklessly vainglorious as Junior's. Both distorted the evidence and suckered their electorate into an ill-conceived and ineptly executed quasi-colonial adventure in blatant breach of every available international treaty. Frankly, I don't care what noble or ignoble motives Blair might have: he's helped to screw things up for years to come, and has helped to legitimize gratuitous military aggression in an unstable world.

He carries the WASP Man's Burden, of course. His political motives are hard to decipher, but as far as I'm concerned, his "thinking" on Iraq was every bit as culpably deceitful and recklessly vainglorious as Junior's. Both distorted the evidence and suckered their electorate into an ill-conceived and ineptly executed quasi-colonial adventure in blatant breach of every available international treaty. Frankly, I don't care what noble or ignoble motives Blair might have: he's helped to screw things up for years to come, and has helped to legitimize gratuitous military aggression in an unstable world.

Click to expand...

All of this aside for the moment... I've always wondered quite specifically how it was that the "poodle" explanation of Blair's cooperation with Bush got such common coinage in the UK; as if to say Blair has no will of his own. This seems an unusually unflattering way to describe a political leader, especially in this case. Whether you agree with them or not, I think he had motives for participating in the Iraq debacle that had little to nothing to do with a desire to become Dubyah's lackey.

All of this aside for the moment... I've always wondered quite specifically how it was that the "poodle" explanation of Blair's cooperation with Bush got such common coinage in the UK; as if to say Blair has no will of his own. This seems an unusually unflattering way to describe a political leader, especially in this case. Whether you agree with them or not, I think he had motives for participating in the Iraq debacle that had little to nothing to do with a desire to become Dubyah's lackey.

Click to expand...

I expect he and George were both motivated by a Sense of Duty towards Civilization and History. I believe they are both creatures of Manifest Destiny. Too much self-regard. Perhaps Blair thought he could moderate George's behaviour. Perhaps he did - the mind fairly boggles at that thought - but he shared in the same crime to a great and inexcusable extent. By only committing a risible fraction of the necessary forces, he failed even to achieve the necessary leverage.

I expect he and George were both motivated by a Sense of Duty towards Civilization and History. I believe they are both creatures of Manifest Destiny. Too much self-regard. Perhaps Blair thought he could moderate George's behaviour. Perhaps he did - the mind fairly boggles at that thought - but he shared in the same crime to a great and inexcusable extent. By only committing a risible fraction of the necessary forces, he failed even to achieve the necessary leverage.

Click to expand...

Perhaps, but I think the motives were a bit more prosaic. The way I see it, Britain is in a very uncomfortable position these days -- not a world power in its own right, and at the same time, not a full participant in the EU. I think Blair hopes, or at least hoped, to use your country's spilt position between Europe and the U.S. as a way to establish new relevance for Britain as a geopolitical force. As you might have guessed, this isn't a theory entirely of my own invention. I read a similar analysis couple of years ago. It's rung true ever since, from what I've seen at least.

I think Blair hopes, or at least hoped, to use your country's spilt position

Click to expand...

No point crying about it, then.
I have no doubt he sees, like others in the recent past, that the only way for Britain to punch above its weight is to piggyback on the greater Anglo power. Also, of course, Britain's so-called "independent nuclear deterrent" is nothing of the sort. The leverage goes both ways.

No point crying about it, then.
I have no doubt he sees, like others in the recent past, that the only way for Britain to punch above its weight is to piggyback on the greater Anglo power. Also, of course, Britain's so-called "independent nuclear deterrent" is nothing of the sort. The leverage goes both ways.

Click to expand...

Not sure I get what you mean by "crying about it," but I think this notion transcends the classic gambit of gaining stature by playing American's best mate. I believe the Blair theory of geopolitics has the UK cast in the role of being "not Europe, but not the US" -- IOW, a middleman of a sorts. This could be an increasingly important position as the EU gains in economic strength and influence, and in fact might be Britain's only hope of remaining geopolitically important in the new environment of European quasi-unity. I'm fairly certain this is how Blair sees it, and I think goes a long way towards explaining Blair's decision to side with the US on Iraq while running interference in "old Europe." I believe that Blair has goals of his own. I have a difficult time accepting the proposition that he's merely a wobbly sycophant, AKA, GWB's poodle.

MacRumors attracts a broad audience
of both consumers and professionals interested in
the latest technologies and products. We also boast an active community focused on
purchasing decisions and technical aspects of the iPhone, iPod, iPad, and Mac platforms.